Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#101

Post by otikik »

lanstin wrote: post #59
andrewstuart wrote: post #34

As you get older you find it becomes a key topic of conversation not just amongst your cells but amongst friends - the conversation always heads towards whatever ailment or problem your body has recently dealt you.

This effect, which I can confirm in more than set of friends, is one of the most annoying aspects of aging. I'd rather gossip about the cheer leaders or the football players than listen to people talk about procedures. I certain have a lot more aches and pains but I don't care to let my attention linger on them.

“You know the captain of the cheerleader team? She has arthritis!”

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#102

Post by mschuster91 »

aeternum wrote: post #82
phkahler wrote: post #56

I've come to think mitochondria are somehow fundamental to health in ways we can't even see. No sources, but they seem relevant to structure of the overall organism, proper healing of wounds, something in the brain (they can move between neurons), apoptosis, and a few other odd things I've seen talked about. They also come up in any number of diseases and conditions. All far beyond what you'd expect from "powerhouse…

Yes, the interesting thing here is that it's the germ cell mitochondria that seem to be the originators of the signal. The article's findings are also backed by data on Eunuchs who live almost 20 years longer than non-castrated men. Now the real question is: Are Bryan Johnson and his followers willing to take logical next step?

> The article's findings are also backed by data on Eunuchs who live almost 20 years longer than non-castrated men.

The question is why this is the case... if it's historical data, it may simply be correlation, not causation, as in most societies eunuchs were prized and highly privileged compared to the general populations as the noblemen in power didn't see them as a threat to their biological line aka their wives (due to the obvious lack of balls and, in many cases, the penis). And no matter the era, those in privileged positions always enjoyed a longer lifespan due to the accessibility of consistent and higher-quality nutrition as well as healthcare.

The only thing coming close that we do have data for (simply out of ethical reasons) is pets and farm animals, and at least for pets there is some reduction in a few reproductive tract-related cancers (well, duh, what's taken out can't grow a cancer) [1] and higher life expectancy due to less fights.

[1] https://www.cats.org.uk/farnham/news/the-importance-of-neute...

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#103

Post by verelo »

omeid2 wrote: post #98
oceanplexian wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t you reverse loss of information? It’s not like the information is particularly unique, we all have the same blueprints. Copy some DNA from someone younger and fill in the gaps Jurassic Park style.

Substitution isn't reversal.

So take a copy when you’re 21 and store it, re-load it every 10 years?

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#104

Post by JumpCrisscross »

omeid2 wrote: post #91
speedylight wrote: post #90

Aging should be classified as a disease because there has to be a set of biological levers that we can manipulate with drugs or other forms of medicine which will have an effect on the aging process across the entire. Like using RNA to reprogram the cells in the body to do things outside of what’s encoded in our base DNA. I don’t see why aging can’t be reversible, I’ve heard some people say it’s an impossible task be…

> I don’t see why aging can’t be reversible Aging is loss of information, you can't reverse that. You can prevent it though.

> Aging is loss of information, you can't reverse that. You can prevent it though

We don't understand aging well enough to say this with any confidence.

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#105

Post by Log_out_ »

speedylight wrote: post #90

Aging should be classified as a disease because there has to be a set of biological levers that we can manipulate with drugs or other forms of medicine which will have an effect on the aging process across the entire. Like using RNA to reprogram the cells in the body to do things outside of what’s encoded in our base DNA. I don’t see why aging can’t be reversible, I’ve heard some people say it’s an impossible task be…

Aging is mamal universal. It's a adaption to predation and I think the key would be to find a mammal that was not predated by dinosaurs. Something like whales.

But even they have the predation damage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#106

Post by fsckboy »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #83
wcoenen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The survival of the individual is indeed not what natural selection is selecting for. Otherwise phenomena like eusocial insects with sterile workers would not make sense. What is actually selected for, is genes that somehow promote more copies of themselves. This is the main takeaway from the book "the selfish gene". However, the example of ants and bees shows that this doesn't exactly promote long lifespan in the st…

I think the common notion is that the survival of the individual is exactly what natural selection is selecting for. However, it seems to me its more selecting for its own particular configuration of genes, that essentially select for a signature of themself. Within a species the configuration between individuals is generally different enough to not ellicit altruistic behaviour. In most animals, the 50% kinship gene…

> I think the common notion is that the survival of the individual is exactly what natural selection is selecting for.

when we reproduce, do we make copies of ourselves? no we don't. It's not survival of individuals. Read the Selfish Gene and it will change your thinking. You as an individual are a piece of clothing for your genes. Your genes reproduce, you don't.

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#107

Post by jacquesm »

wcoenen wrote: post #64
yarg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as the quality of the germ cells declines, there is no evolutionary reason to keep extending life span further; from evolution’s perspective, life exists to reproduce itself. When the individual's survival is the only selection factor, this is true - but it ceases to be the case in social species where reproductively non-viable individuals can still positively influence the reproductive chances of the young. Th…

The survival of the individual is indeed not what natural selection is selecting for. Otherwise phenomena like eusocial insects with sterile workers would not make sense. What is actually selected for, is genes that somehow promote more copies of themselves. This is the main takeaway from the book "the selfish gene". However, the example of ants and bees shows that this doesn't exactly promote long lifespan in the st…

> Otherwise phenomena like eusocial insects with sterile workers would not make sense.

These are often genetically identical with the rest of the hive, just on a different diet and with different treatment after the eggs are laid.

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#108

Post by PeterisP »

antihipocrat wrote: post #99
polishdude20 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't help us change our minds though. The problem with having people in their 90's capable of the same things as people in their 30's is that they'd hold positions of power longer. Old ideas would live on much longer

Many people change their ideas as they age, the ones that don't are more noticeable and reinforce the stereotype.

There is some truth in saying that science progresses one funeral at a time, and in political structures some of the most effective checks on abuse of power is that even the most shrewd dictator eventually dies.

Longevity has its benefits, but if the powerful people can become effectively immortal, then that does have some risks of dystopian stagnation. Like, imagine USSR if Stalin would never die, or Salazar and Franco still holding power in Portugal and Spain, because democracy only became possible when their health failed; and lack of change at top management of megacorporations and major privately held businesses because their owners and CEOs now can be eternal.

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#109

Post by lock-the-spock »

phkahler wrote: post #56

I've come to think mitochondria are somehow fundamental to health in ways we can't even see. No sources, but they seem relevant to structure of the overall organism, proper healing of wounds, something in the brain (they can move between neurons), apoptosis, and a few other odd things I've seen talked about. They also come up in any number of diseases and conditions. All far beyond what you'd expect from "powerhouse…

You would likely enjoy the book "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by nick Hall, one of the most insightful books I've read in a while. It is all about the evolutionary history of mitochondria and our complex cells and how it affects our and other animals' lives. I learned something new on every page. Dense but very well written and clear to follow.

Re: Cells across the body talk to each other about aging

#110

Post by AnthonyMouse »

fsckboy wrote: post #106
wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the common notion is that the survival of the individual is exactly what natural selection is selecting for. However, it seems to me its more selecting for its own particular configuration of genes, that essentially select for a signature of themself. Within a species the configuration between individuals is generally different enough to not ellicit altruistic behaviour. In most animals, the 50% kinship gene…

> I think the common notion is that the survival of the individual is exactly what natural selection is selecting for. when we reproduce, do we make copies of ourselves? no we don't. It's not survival of individuals. Read the Selfish Gene and it will change your thinking. You as an individual are a piece of clothing for your genes. Your genes reproduce, you don't.

> Your genes reproduce, you don't.

It's more complicated than that. Your genes reproduce, but then that child is in your care, and you teach them your values. Then your values reproduce.

And then you're into nature vs. nurture. Your values can't reproduce if you have stupid genes that cause your offspring to die of cystic fibrosis, but your genes can't reproduce if you have stupid values that cause your offspring to be self-destructive and sterile.

"You" are the combination of your genes and your values, and whether there gets to be any more of that depends on whether you, as a whole, are any good at it.

Post reply on HN